The Truths We Must Face To Curb Youth Violence

Conservative Republicans are right when they tell us, in response to
the school tragedy this spring in Jefferson County, Colo., that "gun
control will not solve the problem of youth violence." Liberal
Democrats are right when they claim that it is ludicrous to assert that
parents and educators could solve the problem by bringing up kids
right. Free-speech advocates make a good case when they maintain that
putting filters on the Internet will not stop youngsters from making
pipe bombs. But all these advocates unwittingly fall into one and the
same logical trap, or deliberately use half-truths, to stop us from
embracing those measures that they oppose. It is true that no measure
will solve the problem; there are, though, several that would
significantly curb youth violence.

The lesson from the Columbine High School shootings, which one prays
we will continue to draw on rather than allowing it to fade into
familiarity like too many tragedies before it, is as dull as it is
important: Social phenomena are "overdetermined." They are caused by a
combination of several factors, and hence attacking any one of them
will not eliminate the problem. There is no silver bullet and no magic
cure. But this valid observation should not be used to conceal the fact
that of guns, the culture, and the Internet, each carries some of the
blame. It follows that if we tackle any of them, we shall reduce the
problem some; if we treat several, we shall do even better. But, truth
be told, it cannot be completely licked.

Guns. The gun lobbies argue that guns do not kill people;
people kill people. There's no question they are half-right. People
make a difference--more about this shortly. But so do guns. Think
about the 1,000 or so children who die each year from accidental
discharge of firearms they find in their homes and play with. Think
about the guy who stood on the tower of the University of Texas and
killed 37 students with a gun. He would not have killed that many if
all he had was a knife or a monkey wrench. And the two school killers
in suburban Denver would have been wrestled to the ground if they
hadn't been armed with rapid-fire guns, which sent even the SWAT
teams with their bulletproof vests and semi-military training ducking
for cover.

The gun lobbies have been making a lot of political noise over the
fact that in some parts of the country, New England for instance, in
which there are numerous guns, the murder rates are much lower than in
the South, also awash with guns. See, they say, the difference is in
the culture, not in the availability of the tools of mayhem. But if one
is going to draw on cross-cultural comparisons, why stop in New
England? If England, and all other democracies, are also included, we
see that whatever the culture, the fewer guns, the less killing.

Given that guns account for a chunk of the problem--that is the way
to think about single factors, in terms of what social scientists call
"variance"--several more points need to be made for those who must deal
with the gun-loving lobbies.

First, there is no "right to bear arms" that the press so often
speaks of. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." The meaning of this right has been tested before the
highest court in the land five times over the past 155 years. In each
and every case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there are no
constitutional impediments to imposing gun controls on individuals.
This is the reason the National Rifle Association as a rule does not
challenge gun-control measures in courts, but instead makes large
campaign contributions to legislators, in order to block gun-control
legislation or repeal it. It should be noted that NRA monies played a
major role in defeating 24 Democratic members of Congress in the last
election who supported the Brady Bill.

Second, the NRA is right that the diluted Brady Bill, and other such
measures, will not do much good. The reason is that they are very
limited in scope and gun sellers get around them through loopholes
larger than ocean liners. (For example, background checks of people
buying guns during gun shows have not in the past been required. If a
manufacturer changed the name of an assault weapon, forbidden guns
could become legal because Congress has banned a specific list of
guns--by name.) But the conclusion from the fact that current
gun-control measures are rather weak is the opposite of what the NRA
implies: Our children's safety requires not fewer gun controls, but
more, of the sweeping and encompassing kind Canada, Britain, France,
and Germany have.

Finally, the NRA reminds us that Colorado is one of two states in
which minors are not able to legally own guns, and "look how much good
it did." Well, laws are of little value unless they are enforced. Look
at the low budgets of those in charge of controlling firearms,
especially the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and
see where the inaction lies. If the NRA, with its tremendous lobbying
power, allowed Congress and state legislatures to provide the budgets
and other means gun-control laws require, law-enforcement agencies
would be able to do their jobs.

Education. Parents and teachers should teach youngsters
values, which will make them into good, peace-loving people, we are
told. There is little doubt that education does make a difference (as
do the economic conditions of the neighborhoods in which it takes
place and the historical factors that lead some people to be more
alienated than others). We should realize, though, that education
centered around negative prohibitions, like Just Say No, is not going
to work; we need messages that youngsters find meaningful and
compelling, values and missions to Say Yes to.

Teaching self-restraint and responsible conduct is most successful
when young people are positively involved in some other
activities, rather than when they are only asked to refrain from
what they are tempted to do.

Our society asks parents and teachers to teach young people not to
use drugs and alcohol; not to have premarital sex; not to smoke; and
not to express their aggressive feelings. In short, it seeks to repress
just about everything that the culture tempts young people to do, those
acts that appeal to their raging hormones and impulses.

The most relevant fact for education against violence is that
teaching self-restraint and responsible conduct is most successful when
young people are positively involved in some other activities,
rather than when they are only asked to refrain from what they are
tempted to do. Look at dedicated young Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Black
Muslims, and many others who have strong religious convictions. Look at
those truly engaged in a quest for a healthy body so they can excel in
sports, or those deeply involved in community service. None of these
young people are perfect or immune to the siren calls of our culture or
their bodies. But on average--and this is what we must keep our eyes
glued to, not on individual outliers--they do much better than those
who are just asked to refrain.

Most important, the debate in public schools about which values we
should teach, which unfortunately is so often used to block much-needed
character education, is off the mark. What schools should help
youngsters develop--if schools are going to help lower the likelihood
of more Columbines--are two crucial behavior characteristics: the
capacity to channel impulses into prosocial outlets, and empathy with
others. Teenagers can learn to channel their aroused urges to
activities that do not harm others and yet are self-fulfilling. Sports,
if properly conducted, provide a major opportunity.

I refer to physical education more than to competitive sports, and
sports conducted in the British manner, where it does not matter if you
win or lose but how you play the game. While jocks often pick on other
students, such behavior is not inherent in athletic activities. Indeed,
when any group of students picks on others, or isolates them, this
should not be viewed as a reason to cut back on their activities but as
an opportunity for education, to develop the other much-needed
capacity, that of empathy. Empathy ensures that we will feel the other
person's pain, and makes it much less likely that we shall hurt, taunt,
or isolate him.

Once given these two essential behavioral character traits, specific
values that presuppose them can be readily grafted at home, in
churches, through voluntary associations, and by other means. Once the
two basic personality capacities (or character traits) have been
developed, public schools can devote education for specific values to
those values we all share--a richer catalog than many assume.

Culture. In discussing the role of movies, video games,
and the Internet in making our youngsters more violent than they
would be otherwise, it is as fallacious to argue that these cultural
products cause violence as it is to argue that they play no
role.

Among studies showing that what people watch on television has
effects was a particularly interesting one conducted in three Canadian
villages, which for years were prevented from receiving TV signals
because of their location. Shortly after these communities started
watching TV as a result of the introduction of cable, crime rose
significantly more than in other Canadian towns. To a social scientist,
this natural experiment shows that television added something to the
causes of crime.

I myself studied a videotape of a toddler watching a violent TV show
while playing with his teddy bear. At the beginning of the program, the
kid was all smiles. By the time the tape was winding down, the toddler
had torn the head off his teddy. In a similar vein, children who have
viewed pornographic material are more likely to engage in "orally
copulating with another child" and "inserting an object into their anus
or vagina or that of another child," according to court testimony by a
psychologist from the University of California, Los Angeles.

The Columbine killers downloaded both their neo-Nazi propaganda and
specific designs for making pipe bombs from the Internet. In response,
Vice President Gore has worked out an agreement with several major
Internet companies to set up World Wide Web pages that will help
parents protect their children from vile and violent material.

There is by now a fairly large variety of software products that can
help parents, educators, and librarians screen out dangerous materials.
These include Internet filters such as Net Nanny, Cyber Patrol, and
so-called V-chips, which are now required to be included in all new
television sets. Some of these block access to given lists of Web sites
and TV shows; others block access to "texts" that include specific,
explicit terms.

These filters are attacked by the same false logic and rhetorical
tricks which by now are all too familiar. The filters, we are told,
will not solve the problem. Hackers can disable them, they will allow
some vile and violent material through, and they will prevent access to
some material children might find useful. All this is true, and beside
the point. Filters do not prevent violence any more than locks on our
front doors prevent burglaries or cooking hamburger meat ensures that
the E. coli bacterium will never infect us. They "just" make it less
likely.

Filters unfortunately also seem to make some people foolish and
others immoderate. There are those who argue that parents and educators
should "talk" to their children, communicate more with them, take
responsibility for their children's conduct, and teach them to be
responsible. Of course we should, but we should also question a society
that makes parenting and education so difficult, instead of giving us a
hand, for instance, by making jobs more secure and workplaces more
family-friendly.

What is foolish about these arguments is that they overlook the
merit of getting help in discharging our parental and educational
duties, from wherever we can. Example: In my household, children were
not allowed to watch TV during school days, and their TV time during
other days was rather limited. Yes, we talked plenty--"why" is young
children's favorite word. However, given that I worked outside the
home, and given that the children were young and hence both their
willpower and sense of responsibility were still being developed, locks
on the TV sets helped prevent them from undue temptation until they
matured. And these locks allowed me to do something other than keeping
an eye on two TV sets and two computers in a household with four
children.

To reiterate, to argue that we should not "rely" on gadgets is all
too true; God forgive the parents who install a Net Nanny and a V-chip
and believe they have discharged their educational duties. But to argue
that we should refuse the help of such devices is like saying that we
don't need seat belts and should instead simply teach young people in
driver's education to drive "responsibly."

The immoderate opposition to filters, led by the American Civil
Liberties Union and the American Library Association, particularly
deserves attention because it raises a major question of educational
philosophy: Are we to view children as developing creatures, or as
undersized adults, with all the rights thereof? By developing
creatures, I mean human beings that begin their lives highly dependent
on adults for their well-being and quite unable to form judgments of
their own or exercise self-restraint, and who acquire an increasing
ability over the years to act in a responsible manner toward
themselves, others, and the community. The fact that children are
developmental may seem so self-evident that we rarely articulate this
elementary fact. It is not so for the ACLU, the ALA, and some extreme
children's-rights advocates.

These associations and advocates take the position that children are
basically to be accorded the same rights as adults. For instance, the
ACLU opposed limitations on the Joe Camel cigarette advertising, aimed
at enticing children to smoke, on several grounds, one of which is that
children's access to information should not be denied. For the same
reason, the ACLU went to court and got filters on computers thrown out
in public libraries in Virginia, and had them removed under threat of
lawsuits in California.

During a meeting with ACLU representatives in Washington, in which
other groups concerned with the right to privacy participated, the ACLU
made it clear that it was opposed to setting any age limit whatsoever
on the rights of children to access any and all material. The special
protection of children sought by the Federal Trade Commission, at issue
in that meeting, concerned only those 12 years old or younger. Asked if
the ACLU would be satisfied if the age limit were lowered, the answer
was a simple no. And when courts examined whether filters should be
introduced into computers in public libraries to which children have
access, the ACLU claimed that "explicit sex information and even
pornography do not themselves cause psychological harm to minors of any
age."

The American Library Association takes a very similar position. It
denies parents of children of any age the right to find out which books
their children have checked out. In a policy that is humorous if not
absurd, the ALA tells parents, who must sign a statement accepting
liability for books their children lose, that if such parents wish to
find out which books they are being fined for, they need a note from
their children permitting the library to disclose such information!

As I see it, parents and teachers have not merely a right but a duty
to find out what their charges are reading, screening, or playing with.
They have a duty to help shape the educational environment of their
children, help them choose which books they should read, which music
they should listen to, which TV programs they should watch, and which
they should avoid. This seems indisputable when we're talking about
preteens; even in the case of teenagers, parents and educators need to
be involved rather than shut out. If a classmate of my son committed
suicide, and my son seems rather depressed and is spending long hours
alone in the library, it is my duty at a minimum to find out if he's
merely reading Dostoevsky, or the Hemlock Society's how-to books. I
also had better find out if one of my children is deep into Mein
Kampf, The Anarchist's Cookbook, or the Unabomber's
manifesto, so I can help him learn to deal properly with these
poisonous works.

Helping children develop the moral and intellectual faculties needed
to make responsible choices when they grow up is what raising kids is
all about. Anybody can provide room and board, and love comes
naturally. But developing a child's character is a parent's highest
duty, one they share with educators, who often do stand in for
parents.

Truth be told, the Lord, nature, and social science have not given
us what it takes to lick most social problems. Hence, it is rather easy
to show that any specific measure will not solve the problem of youth
violence or much of anything else. But if we do not allow the quest for
the perfect person and society to stop us, we will be able to make it
much less likely that we shall face the Columbine tragedy again.

There is very little in our personal and collective lives that is
more important than saving the lives of our children. We should
dedicate more of our energy and resources to doing so, even if this
means we have to proceed one child at a time, for helping one child may
save 15.

Amitai Entzioni is the author of, most recently, The Limits of
Privacy. A sociologist, he is the University Professor at George
Washington University in Washington.

For more information about Internet filters, Internet access policies,
security software, and the citation of electronic material, visit the
PubLib
Refdesk, from The Berkeley
Digital Library SunSITE, sponsored by the UC Berkeley library and
Sun Microsystems Inc.

ERIC maintains a bibliography of both Internet resources and ERIC
documents on character
education.

Read a review
of character education in the United States, by Dr. William Huitt of
Valdosta State University.

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.